Impact of Hospital Affiliation With a Flagship Hospital System on Surgical Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare general surgery outcomes at flagship systems, flagship hospitals, and flagship hospital affiliates versus matched controls. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: It is unknown whether flagship hospitals perform better than flagship hospital affiliates for surgical patients. METHODS: Using Medicare claims for 2018 to 2019, we matched patients undergoing inpatient general surgery in flagship system hospitals to controls who underwent the same procedure at hospitals outside the system but within the same region. We defined a "flagship hospital" within each region as the major teaching hospital with the highest patient volume that is also part of a hospital system; its system was labeled a "flagship system." We performed 4 main comparisons: patients treated at any flagship system hospital versus hospitals outside the flagship system; flagship hospitals versus hospitals outside the flagship system; flagship hospital affiliates versus hospitals outside the flagship system; and flagship hospitals versus affiliate hospitals. Our primary outcome was 30-day mortality. RESULTS: We formed 32,228 closely matched pairs across 35 regions. Patients at flagship system hospitals (32,228 pairs) had lower 30-day mortality than matched control patients [3.79% vs. 4.36%, difference=-0.57% (-0.86%, -0.28%), P<0.001]. Similarly, patients at flagship hospitals (15,571/32,228 pairs) had lower mortality than control patients. However, patients at flagship hospital affiliates (16,657/32,228 pairs) had similar mortality to matched controls. Flagship hospitals had lower mortality than affiliate hospitals [difference-in-differences=-1.05% (-1.62%, -0.47%), P<0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated at flagship hospitals had significantly lower mortality rates than those treated at flagship hospital affiliates. Hence, flagship system affiliation does not alone imply better surgical outcomes.

Spinal Anesthesia or General Anesthesia for Hip Surgery in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: The effects of spinal anesthesia as compared with general anesthesia on the ability to walk in older adults undergoing surgery for hip fracture have not been well studied. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, randomized superiority trial to evaluate spinal anesthesia as compared with general anesthesia in previously ambulatory patients 50 years of age or older who were undergoing surgery for hip fracture at 46 U.S. and Canadian hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive spinal or general anesthesia. The primary outcome was a composite of death or an inability to walk approximately 10 ft (3 m) independently or with a walker or cane at 60 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes included death within 60 days, delirium, time to discharge, and ambulation at 60 days. RESULTS: A total of 1600 patients were enrolled; 795 were assigned to receive spinal anesthesia and 805 to receive general anesthesia. The mean age was 78 years, and 67.0% of the patients were women. A total of 666 patients (83.8%) assigned to spinal anesthesia and 769 patients (95.5%) assigned to general anesthesia received their assigned anesthesia. Among patients in the modified intention-to-treat population for whom data were available, the composite primary outcome occurred in 132 of 712 patients (18.5%) in the spinal anesthesia group and 132 of 733 (18.0%) in the general anesthesia group (relative risk, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.83). An inability to walk independently at 60 days was reported in 104 of 684 patients (15.2%) and 101 of 702 patients (14.4%), respectively (relative risk, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.36), and death within 60 days occurred in 30 of 768 (3.9%) and 32 of 784 (4.1%), respectively (relative risk, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.57). Delirium occurred in 130 of 633 patients (20.5%) in the spinal anesthesia group and in 124 of 629 (19.7%) in the general anesthesia group (relative risk, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.30). CONCLUSIONS: Spinal anesthesia for hip-fracture surgery in older adults was not superior to general anesthesia with respect to survival and recovery of ambulation at 60 days. The incidence of postoperative delirium was similar with the two types of anesthesia. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; REGAIN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02507505.).

Why Evidence Generation Should Matter to Payers and How They Can Help.

Importance: The US leads the world in bringing new medical products to market, but the ability to generate evidence to inform clinical practice in postmarket settings needs improvement. Although a diverse group of stakeholders is working to improve postmarket evidence generation, the role of private payers has been underappreciated. Observations: Payers are crucial allies in improving evidence generation because better data would better inform coverage decisions, their policies and practices influence the conduct of care and research, and their claims data are a source of real-world evidence used in medical product evaluation. In addition, payers have a stake in improving evidence generation because the kinds of evidence needed to inform health care and coverage decisions are often not available when a product enters the market and may not be generated without their involvement. Here, we describe several key steps payers could take to improve evidence generation, including participating in efforts to reduce administrative and financial barriers to the conduct of clinical trials, directly incentivizing evidence generation on high-priority questions by funding potential cost-saving trials, increasing engagement with the medical products industry on evidentiary needs for coverage decisions, and improving usability of claims data by reducing data lags and routinely recording unique device identifiers. Broad payer engagement with US Food and Drug Administration recommendations regarding evidence generation will ensure that the opportunities to participate in clinical research are extended to all communities and that evidence needed to inform care is generated in trials and surveillance systems that reflect the clinical reality across the US. Conclusions and Relevance: Increasing payer involvement in evidence generation can benefit all participants in the medical innovation ecosystem. The importance of payers in these efforts will continue to grow in response to imperatives to increase integration of care and research, engage a diverse set of communities in clinical research, and move toward alternative payment models.

Modernizing the Data Infrastructure for Clinical Research to Meet Evolving Demands for Evidence.

Importance: The ways in which we access, acquire, and use data in clinical trials have evolved very little over time, resulting in a fragmented and inefficient system that limits the amount and quality of evidence that can be generated. Observations: Clinical trial design has advanced steadily over several decades. Yet the infrastructure for clinical trial data collection remains expensive and labor intensive and limits the amount of evidence that can be collected to inform whether and how interventions work for different patient populations. Meanwhile, there is increasing demand for evidence from randomized clinical trials to inform regulatory decisions, payment decisions, and clinical care. Although substantial public and industry investment in advancing electronic health record interoperability, data standardization, and the technology systems used for data capture have resulted in significant progress on various aspects of data generation, there is now a need to combine the results of these efforts and apply them more directly to the clinical trial data infrastructure. Conclusions and Relevance: We describe a vision for a modernized infrastructure that is centered around 2 related concepts. First, allowing the collection and rigorous evaluation of multiple data sources and types and, second, enabling the possibility to reuse health data for multiple purposes. We address the need for multidisciplinary collaboration and suggest ways to measure progress toward this goal.

Escalation and Withdrawal of Treatment for Patients on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe decisions about the escalation and withdrawal of treatment for patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Interventions premised on facilitating patient autonomy have proven problematic in guiding treatment decisions in intensive care units (ICUs). Calls have thus been made to better understand how decisions are made in critical care. ECMO is an important form of cardiac and respiratory support, but care on ECMO is characterized by prognostic uncertainty, varying time course, and high resource use. It remains unclear how decisions about treatment escalation and withdrawal should be made for patients on ECMO and what role families should play in these decisions. METHODS: We performed a focused ethnography in 2 cardiothoracic ICUs in 2 US academic hospitals. We conducted 380 hours of observation, 34 weekly interviews with families of 20 ECMO patients, and 13 interviews with unit clinicians from January to September 2018. Qualitative analysis used an iterative coding process. RESULTS: Following ECMO initiation, treatment was escalated as complications mounted until the patient either could be decannulated or interventional options were exhausted. Families were well-informed about treatment and prognosis but played minimal roles in shaping the trajectory of care. CONCLUSIONS: Discussion between clinicians and families about prognosis and goals was frequent but did not occasion decision-making moments. This study helps explain why communication interventions intended to maintain patient autonomy through facilitating surrogate participation in decisions have had limited impact. A more comprehensive understanding of upstream factors that predispose courses of critical care is needed.

The Safety of Performing Surgery at Ambulatory Surgery Centers Versus Hospital Outpatient Departments in Older Patients With or Without Multimorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for older Americans is increasingly being performed at ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) rather than hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs), while rates of multimorbidity have increased. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are differential outcomes in older patients undergoing surgical procedures at ASCs versus HOPDs. RESEARCH DESIGN: Matched cohort study. SUBJECTS: Of Medicare patients, 30,958 were treated in 2018 and 2019 at an ASC undergoing herniorrhaphy, cholecystectomy, or open breast procedures, matched to similar HOPD patients, and another 32,702 matched pairs undergoing higher-risk procedures. MEASURES: Seven and 30-day revisit and complication rates. RESULTS: For the same procedures, HOPD patients displayed a higher baseline predicted risk of 30-day revisits than ASC patients (13.09% vs 8.47%, P < 0.0001), suggesting the presence of considerable selection on the part of surgeons. In matched Medicare patients with or without multimorbidity, we observed worse outcomes in HOPD patients: 30-day revisit rates were 8.1% in HOPD patients versus 6.2% in ASC patients ( P < 0.0001), and complication rates were 41.3% versus 28.8%, P < 0.0001. Similar patterns were also found for 7-day outcomes and in higher-risk procedures examined in a secondary analysis. Similar patterns were also observed when analyzing patients with and without multimorbidity separately. CONCLUSIONS: The rates of revisits and complications for ASC patients were far lower than for closely matched HOPD patients. The observed initial baseline risk in HOPD patients was much higher than the baseline risk for the same procedures performed at the ASC, suggesting that surgeons are appropriately selecting their riskier patients to be treated at the HOPD rather than the ASC.

Mortality Among Older Medical Patients at Flagship Hospitals and Their Affiliates.

BACKGROUND: We define a "flagship hospital" as the largest academic hospital within a hospital referral region and a "flagship system" as a system that contains a flagship hospital and its affiliates. It is not known if patients admitted to an affiliate hospital, and not to its main flagship hospital, have better outcomes than those admitted to a hospital outside the flagship system but within the same hospital referral region. OBJECTIVE: To compare mortality at flagship hospitals and their affiliates to matched control patients not in the flagship system but within the same hospital referral region. DESIGN: A matched cohort study PARTICIPANTS: The study used hospitalizations for common medical conditions between 2018-2019 among older patients age ≥ 66 years. We analyzed 118,321 matched pairs of Medicare patients admitted with pneumonia (N=57,775), heart failure (N=42,531), or acute myocardial infarction (N=18,015) in 35 flagship hospitals, 124 affiliates, and 793 control hospitals. MAIN MEASURES: 30-day (primary) and 90-day (secondary) all-cause mortality. KEY RESULTS: 30-day mortality was lower among patients in flagship systems versus control hospitals that are not part of the flagship system but within the same hospital referral region (difference= -0.62%, 95% CI [-0.88%, -0.37%], P<0.001). This difference was smaller in affiliates versus controls (-0.43%, [-0.75%, -0.11%], P=0.008) than in flagship hospitals versus controls (-1.02%, [-1.46%, -0.58%], P<0.001; difference-in-difference -0.59%, [-1.13%, -0.05%], P=0.033). Similar results were found for 90-day mortality. LIMITATIONS: The study used claims-based data. CONCLUSIONS: In aggregate, within a hospital referral region, patients treated at the flagship hospital, at affiliates of the flagship hospital, and in the flagship system as a whole, all had lower mortality rates than matched controls outside the flagship system. However, the mortality advantage was larger for flagship hospitals than for their affiliates.

Defining Multimorbidity in Older Patients Hospitalized with Medical Conditions.

BACKGROUND: The term "multimorbidity" identifies high-risk, complex patients and is conventionally defined as ≥2 comorbidities. However, this labels almost all older patients as multimorbid, making this definition less useful for physicians, hospitals, and policymakers. OBJECTIVE: Develop new medical condition-specific multimorbidity definitions for patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia patients. We developed three medical condition-specific multimorbidity definitions as the presence of single, double, or triple combinations of comorbidities - called Qualifying Comorbidity Sets (QCSs) - associated with at least doubling the risk of 30-day mortality for AMI and pneumonia, or one-and-a-half times for HF patients, compared to typical patients with these conditions. DESIGN: Cohort-based matching study PARTICIPANTS: One hundred percent Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries with inpatient admissions between 2016 and 2019 for AMI, HF, and pneumonia. MAIN MEASURES: Thirty-day all-location mortality KEY RESULTS: We defined multimorbidity as the presence of ≥1 QCS. The new definitions labeled fewer patients as multimorbid with a much higher risk of death compared to the conventional definition (≥2 comorbidities). The proportions of patients labeled as multimorbid using the new definition versus the conventional definition were: for AMI 47% versus 87% (p value<0.0001), HF 53% versus 98% (p value<0.0001), and pneumonia 57% versus 91% (p value<0.0001). Thirty-day mortality was higher among patients with ≥1 QCS compared to ≥2 comorbidities: for AMI 15.0% versus 9.5% (p<0.0001), HF 9.9% versus 7.0% (p <0.0001), and pneumonia 18.4% versus 13.2% (p <0.0001). CONCLUSION: The presence of ≥2 comorbidities identified almost all patients as multimorbid. In contrast, our new QCS-based definitions selected more specific combinations of comorbidities associated with substantial excess risk in older patients admitted for AMI, HF, and pneumonia. Thus, our new definitions offer a better approach to identifying multimorbid patients, allowing physicians, hospitals, and policymakers to more effectively use such information to consider focused interventions for these vulnerable patients.

The Anesthesiology Physician-Scientist Pipeline: Current Status and Recommendations for Future Growth-An Initiative of the Anesthesia Research Council.

The limited number and diversity of resident physicians pursuing careers as physician-scientists in medicine has been a concern for many decades. The Anesthesia Research Council aimed to address the status of the anesthesiology physician-scientist pipeline, benchmarked against other medical specialties, and to develop strategic recommendations to sustain and expand the number and diversity of anesthesiology physician-scientists. The working group analyzed data from the Association of American Medical Colleges and the National Resident Matching Program to characterize the diversity and number of research-oriented residents from US and international allopathic medical schools entering 11 medical specialties from 2009 to 2019. Two surveys were developed to assess the research culture of anesthesiology departments. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding information awarded to anesthesiology physician-scientists and departments was collected from NIH RePORTER and the Blue Ridge Medical Institute. Anesthesiology ranked eighth to tenth place of 11 medical specialties in the percent of "research-oriented" entering residents, defined as those with advanced degrees (Master's or PhDs) in addition to the MD degree or having published at least 3 research publications before residency. Anesthesiology ranked eighth of 11 specialties in the percent of entering residents who were women but ranked fourth of 11 specialties in the percent of entering residents who self-identified as belonging to an underrepresented group in medicine. There has been a 72% increase in both the total NIH funding awarded to anesthesiology departments and the number of NIH K-series mentored training grants (eg, K08 and K23) awarded to anesthesiology physician-scientists between 2015 and 2020. Recommendations for expanding the size and diversity of the anesthesiology physician-scientist pipeline included (1) developing strategies to increase the number of research intensive anesthesiology departments; (2) unifying the diverse programs among academic anesthesiology foundations and societies that seek to grow research in the specialty; (3) adjusting American Society of Anesthesiologists metrics of success to include the number of anesthesiology physician-scientists with extramural research support; (4) increasing the number of mentored awards from Foundation of Anesthesia Education and Research (FAER) and International Anesthesia Research Society (IARS); (5) supporting an organized and concerted effort to inform research-oriented medical students of the diverse research opportunities within anesthesiology should include the specialty being represented at the annual meetings of Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) students and the American Physician Scientist Association, as well as in institutional MSTP programs. The medical specialty of anesthesiology is defined by new discoveries and contributions to perioperative medicine which will only be sustained by a robust pipeline of anesthesiology physician-scientists.

Does Masked Interviewing Encourage Holistic Review in Residency Selection? A Mixed-Methods Study.

Problem: Medical educators increasingly champion holistic review. However, in U.S. residency selection, holistic review has been difficult to implement, hindered by a reliance on standardized academic criteria such as board scores. Masking faculty interviewers to applicants' academic files is a potential means of promoting holistic residency selection by increasing the interview's ability to make a discrete contribution to evaluation. However, little research has directly analyzed the effects of masking on how residency selection committees evaluate applicants. This mixed-methods study examined how masking interviews altered residency selection in an anesthesiology program at a large U.S. academic medical center. Intervention: During the 2019-2020 residency selection season in the University of Pennsylvania's Department of Anesthesiology & Critical Care, we masked interviewers to the major academic components of candidates' application files (board scores, transcripts, letters) on approximately half of interview days. The intent of the masking intervention was to mitigate the tendency of interviewers to form predispositions about candidates based on standardized academic criteria and thereby allow the interview to make a more independent contribution to candidate evaluation. Context: Our examination of the masking intervention used a concurrent, partially mixed, equal-status mixed-methods design guided by a pragmatist approach. We audio-recorded selection committee meetings and qualitatively analyzed them to explore how masking affected the process of candidate evaluation. We also collected independent candidate ratings from interviewers and consensus committee ratings and statistically compared ratings of candidates interviewed on masked days to ratings from conventional days. Impact: In conventional committee meetings, interviewers focused on how to reconcile academic metrics and interviews, and their evaluations of interviews were framed according to predispositions about candidates formed through perusal of application files. In masked meetings, members instead spent considerable effort evaluating candidates' "fit" and whether they came off as tactful. Masked interviewers gave halting opinions of candidates and sometimes pushed for committee leaders to reveal academic information, leading to masking breaches. Higher USMLE Step 1 score and higher medical school ranking were statistically associated with more favorable consensus rating. We found no significant differences in rating outcomes between masked and conventional interview days. Lessons learned: Elimination of academic metrics during the residency interview phase does not straightforwardly promote holistic review. While critical reflection among medical educators about the fairness and utility of such metrics has been productive, research and intervention should focus on the more proximate topic of how programs apply academic and other criteria to evaluate applicants.

Perioperative Neurological Evaluation and Management to Lower the Risk of Acute Stroke in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac, Nonneurological Surgery: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.

Perioperative stroke is a potentially devastating complication in patients undergoing noncardiac, nonneurological surgery. This scientific statement summarizes established risk factors for perioperative stroke, preoperative and intraoperative strategies to mitigate the risk of stroke, suggestions for postoperative assessments, and treatment approaches for minimizing permanent neurological dysfunction in patients who experience a perioperative stroke. The first section focuses on preoperative optimization, including the role of preoperative carotid revascularization in patients with high-grade carotid stenosis and delaying surgery in patients with recent strokes. The second section reviews intraoperative strategies to reduce the risk of stroke, focusing on blood pressure control, perioperative goal-directed therapy, blood transfusion, and anesthetic technique. Finally, this statement presents strategies for the evaluation and treatment of patients with suspected postoperative strokes and, in particular, highlights the value of rapid recognition of strokes and the early use of intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical embolectomy in appropriate patients.

Improving Serious Illness Care for Surgical Patients: Quality Indicators for Surgical Palliative Care.

OBJECTIVE: Develop quality indicators that measure access to and the quality of primary PC delivered to seriously ill surgical patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: PC for seriously ill surgical patients, including aligning treatments with patients' goals and managing symptoms, is associated with improved patient-oriented outcomes and decreased healthcare utilization. However, efforts to integrate PC alongside restorative surgical care are limited by a lack of surgical quality indicators to evaluate primary PC delivery. METHODS: We developed a set of 27 preliminary indicators that measured palliative processes of care across the surgical episode, including goals of care, decision-making, symptom assessment, and issues related to palliative surgery. Then using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness method, a 12-member expert advisory panel rated the validity (primary outcome) and feasibility of each indicator twice: (1) remotely and (2) after an in-person moderated discussion. RESULTS: After 2 rounds of rating, 24 indicators were rated as valid, covering the preoperative evaluation (9 indicators), immediate preoperative readiness (2 indicators), intraoperative (1 indicator), postoperative (8 indicators), and end of life (4 indicators) phases of surgical care. CONCLUSIONS: This set of quality indicators provides a comprehensive set of process measures that possess the potential to measure high quality PC for seriously ill surgical patients throughout the surgical episode.

Alzheimer's Dementia After Exposure to Anesthesia and Surgery in the Elderly: A Matched Natural Experiment Using Appendicitis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether surgery and anesthesia in the elderly may promote Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD). BACKGROUND: There is a substantial conflicting literature concerning the hypothesis that surgery and anesthesia promotes ADRD. Much of the literature is confounded by indications for surgery or has small sample size. This study examines elderly patients with appendicitis, a common condition that strikes mostly at random after controlling for some known associations. METHODS: A matched natural experiment of patients undergoing appendectomy for appendicitis versus control patients without appendicitis using Medicare data from 2002 to 2017, examining 54,996 patients without previous diagnoses of ADRD, cognitive impairment, or neurological degeneration, who developed appendicitis between ages 68 through 77 years and underwent an appendectomy (the ''Appendectomy'' treated group), matching them 5:1 to 274,980 controls, examining the subsequent hazard for developing ADRD. RESULTS: The hazard ratio (HR) for developing ADRD or death was lower in the Appendectomy group than controls: HR = 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-0.98], P < 0.0001, (28.2% in Appendectomy vs 29.1% in controls, at 7.5 years). The HR for death was 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-0.99), P = 0.002, (22.7% vs 23.1% at 7.5 years). The HR for developing ADRD alone was 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.92), P < 0.0001, (7.6% in Appendectomy vs 8.6% in controls, at 7.5 years). No subgroup analyses found significantly elevated rates of ADRD in the Appendectomy group. CONCLUSION: In this natural experiment involving 329,976 elderly patients, exposure to appendectomy surgery and anesthesia did not increase the subsequent rate of ADRD.

Anesthesiologists' Role in Value-based Perioperative Care and Healthcare Transformation.

Health care is undergoing major transformation with a shift from fee-for-service care to fee-for-value. The advent of new care delivery and payment models is serving as a driver for value-based care. Hospitals, payors, and patients increasingly expect physicians and healthcare systems to improve outcomes and manage costs. The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on surgical and procedural practices further highlights the urgency and need for anesthesiologists to expand their roles in perioperative care, and to impact system improvement. While there have been substantial advances in anesthesia care, perioperative complications and mortality after surgery remain a key concern. Anesthesiologists are in a unique position to impact perioperative health care through their multitude of interactions and influences on various aspects of the perioperative domain, by using the surgical experience as the first touchpoint to reengage the patient in their own health care. Among the key interventions that are being effectively instituted by anesthesiologists include proactive engagement in preoperative optimization of patients' health; personalization and standardization of care delivery by segmenting patients based upon their complexity and risk; and implementation of best practices that are data-driven and evidence-based and provide structure that allow the patient to return to their optimal state of functional, cognitive, and psychologic health. Through collaborative relationships with other perioperative stakeholders, anesthesiologists can consolidate their role as clinical leaders driving value-based care and healthcare transformation in the best interests of patients.

Patient Involvement in Anesthesia Decision-making: A Qualitative Study of Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Calls to better involve patients in decisions about anesthesia-e.g., through shared decision-making-are intensifying. However, several features of anesthesia consultation make it unclear how patients should participate in decisions. Evaluating the feasibility and desirability of carrying out shared decision-making in anesthesia requires better understanding of preoperative conversations. The objective of this qualitative study was to characterize how preoperative consultations for primary knee arthroplasty arrived at decisions about primary anesthesia. METHODS: This focused ethnography was performed at a U.S. academic medical center. The authors audio-recorded consultations of 36 primary knee arthroplasty patients with eight anesthesiologists. Patients and anesthesiologists also participated in semi-structured interviews. Consultation and interview transcripts were coded in an iterative process to develop an explanation of how anesthesiologists and patients made decisions about primary anesthesia. RESULTS: The authors found variation across accounts of anesthesiologists and patients as to whether the consultation was a collaborative decision-making scenario or simply meant to inform patients. Consultations displayed a number of decision-making patterns, from the anesthesiologist not disclosing options to the anesthesiologist strictly adhering to a position of equipoise; however, most consultations fell between these poles, with the anesthesiologist presenting options, recommending one, and persuading hesitant patients to accept it. Anesthesiologists made patients feel more comfortable with their proposed approach through extensive comparisons to more familiar experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesia consultations are multifaceted encounters that serve several functions. In some cases, the involvement of patients in determining the anesthetic approach might not be the most important of these functions. Broad consideration should be given to both the applicability and feasibility of shared decision-making in anesthesia consultation. The potential benefits of interventions designed to enhance patient involvement in decision-making should be weighed against their potential to pull anesthesiologists' attention away from important humanistic aspects of communication such as decreasing patients' anxiety.

Rates of COVID-19 Among Residents and Staff Members in Nursing Homes - United States, May 25-November 22, 2020.

During the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, nursing homes were identified as congregate settings at high risk for outbreaks of COVID-19 (1,2). Their residents also are at higher risk than the general population for morbidity and mortality associated with infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in light of the association of severe outcomes with older age and certain underlying medical conditions (1,3). CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) launched nationwide, facility-level COVID-19 nursing home surveillance on April 26, 2020. A federal mandate issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), required nursing homes to commence enrollment and routine reporting of COVID-19 cases among residents and staff members by May 25, 2020. This report uses the NHSN nursing home COVID-19 data reported during May 25-November 22, 2020, to describe COVID-19 rates among nursing home residents and staff members and compares these with rates in surrounding communities by corresponding U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) region.* COVID-19 cases among nursing home residents increased during June and July 2020, reaching 11.5 cases per 1,000 resident-weeks (calculated as the total number of occupied beds on the day that weekly data were reported) (week of July 26). By mid-September, rates had declined to 6.3 per 1,000 resident-weeks (week of September 13) before increasing again, reaching 23.2 cases per 1,000 resident-weeks by late November (week of November 22). COVID-19 cases among nursing home staff members also increased during June and July (week of July 26 = 10.9 cases per 1,000 resident-weeks) before declining during August-September (week of September 13 = 6.3 per 1,000 resident-weeks); rates increased by late November (week of November 22 = 21.3 cases per 1,000 resident-weeks). Rates of COVID-19 in the surrounding communities followed similar trends. Increases in community rates might be associated with increases in nursing home COVID-19 incidence, and nursing home mitigation strategies need to include a comprehensive plan to monitor local SARS-CoV-2 transmission and minimize high-risk exposures within facilities.

Improving perioperative brain health: an expert consensus review of key actions for the perioperative care team.

Delirium and postoperative neurocognitive disorder are the commonest perioperative complications in patients more than 65 yr of age. However, data suggest that we often fail to screen patients for preoperative cognitive impairment, to warn patients and families of risk, and to take preventive measures to reduce the incidence of perioperative neurocognitive disorders. As part of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Perioperative Brain Health Initiative, an international group of experts was invited to review published best practice statements and guidelines. The expert group aimed to achieve consensus on a small number of practical recommendations that could be implemented by anaesthetists and their partners to reduce the incidence of perioperative neurocognitive disorders. Six statements were selected based not only on the strength of the evidence, but also on the potential for impact and the feasibility of widespread implementation. The actions focus on education, cognitive and delirium screening, non-pharmacologic interventions, pain control, and avoidance of antipsychotics. Strategies for effective implementation are discussed. Anaesthetists should be key members of multidisciplinary perioperative care teams to implement these recommendations.

Systematic review and consensus definitions for the Standardized Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative: cardiovascular outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Adverse cardiovascular events are a leading cause of perioperative morbidity and mortality. The definitions of perioperative cardiovascular adverse events are heterogeneous. As part of the international Standardized Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative, this study aimed to find consensus amongst clinical trialists on a set of standardised and valid cardiovascular outcomes for use in future perioperative clinical trials. METHODS: We identified currently used perioperative cardiovascular outcomes by a systematic review of the anaesthesia and perioperative medicine literature (PubMed/Ovid, Embase, and Cochrane Library). We performed a three-stage Delphi consensus-gaining process that involved 55 clinician researchers worldwide. Cardiovascular outcomes were first shortlisted and the most suitable definitions determined. These cardiovascular outcomes were then assessed for validity, reliability, feasibility, and clarity. RESULTS: We identified 18 cardiovascular outcomes. Participation in the three Delphi rounds was 100% (n=19), 71% (n=55), and 89% (n=17), respectively. A final list of nine cardiovascular outcomes was elicited from the consensus: myocardial infarction, myocardial injury, cardiovascular death, non-fatal cardiac arrest, coronary revascularisation, major adverse cardiac events, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and atrial fibrillation. These nine cardiovascular outcomes were rated by the majority of experts as valid, reliable, feasible, and clearly defined. CONCLUSIONS: These nine consensus cardiovascular outcomes can be confidently used as endpoints in clinical trials designed to evaluate perioperative interventions with the goal of improving perioperative outcomes.

Impact of COVID-19 Restrictions on Demographics and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Medically Necessary Non-Emergent Surgeries During the Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in large-scale healthcare restrictions to control viral spread, reducing operating room censuses to include only medically necessary surgeries. The impact of restrictions on which patients undergo surgical procedures and their perioperative outcomes is less understood. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent medically necessary surgical procedures at our institution during a restricted operative period due to the COVID-19 pandemic (March 23-April 24, 2020) were compared to patients undergoing procedures during a similar time period in the pre-COVID-19 era (March 25-April 26, 2019). Cardinal matching and differences in means were utilized to analyze perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: 857 patients had surgery in 2019 (pre-COVID-19) and 212 patients had surgery in 2020 (COVID-19). The COVID-19 era cohort had a higher proportion of patients who were male (61.3% vs. 44.5%, P < 0.0001), were White (83.5% vs. 68.7%, P < 0.001), had private insurance (62.7% vs. 54.3%, p 0.05), were ASA classification 4 (10.9% vs. 3%, P < 0.0001), and underwent oncologic procedures (69.3% vs. 42.7%, P < 0.0001). Following 1:1 cardinal matching, COVID-19 era patients (N = 157) had a decreased likelihood of discharge to a nursing facility (risk difference-8.3, P < 0.0001) and shorter median length of stay (risk difference-0.6, p 0.04) compared to pre-COVID-19 era patients. There was no difference between the two patient cohorts in overall morbidity and 30-day readmission. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 restrictions on surgical operations were associated with a change in the racial and insurance demographics in patients undergoing medically necessary surgical procedures but were not associated with worse postoperative morbidity. Further study is necessary to better identify the causes for patient demographic differences.